Canada's Ugly Secret

[HopAlongBunny]

Cultural genocide, starvation, sexual abuse ... etc.
There appears to be no depravity too low in Canada's attempt to eliminate it's aboriginal people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33099511

The article barely scratches the surface :no:

[rvg]

Time to get over it and move on.

[Papewaio]

Time to get over it and move on.

Why? Did you read the article?

[rvg]

Why? Did you read the article?

Not a good reason for self-flagellation over something that took place a generation ago.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cultural genocide, starvation, sexual abuse ... etc.
There appears to be no depravity too low in Canada's attempt to eliminate it's aboriginal people:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33099511

The article barely scratches the surface :no:

It's certainly ugly but it's no secret - it's the same horrible thing that was done by Colonials throughout the New World and the Canadian Residential Schools program was know as one of the worst. There was such disquiet over this in the UK that as late as the 1980's Parliament had reservations about granting Canada full legislative autonomy, lest they legislate prejudice.

Also, this all stopped over half a century ago, most of the people currently in the Canadian Government today were barely alive, then, or hadn't even been born.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why? Did you read the article?

I did, it's sensationalist.

[Papewaio]

6000+ dead

Standard abuse theme by church run school.

It's not over yet as there are people who went through those schools and the families of those are also impacted.

Are any of those statements non factual or even sensationalist?

[Fragony]

It isn't unkwon to me either, I thought it was commenly known

[Greyblades]

My thoughts while reading:

Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has released its findings into more than a century of abuse in Indian Residential Schools. Between the 1880s and 1990s 150,000 aboriginal children were sent to institutions where they were stripped of their language and culture... "Oh boy here we go, another sob story by liberal hippies giving us yet another dose of overblown white guilt for having the temerity to demand a unified language and-


Many faced emotional, physical and sexual abuse.
"Oh. So less 'Save the culture' whining and more 'Oranges and Sunshine' Skeletons in the closet. This might actually be interesting

Reads to the end.

"Never mind. This is Exhibit A to the rule 'presentation matters'. They really couldn't have found someone less dramatic and sermonising to write this? Christ, apparantly an actual genocide isnt enough it has to be a 'Cultural Genocide' as if that somehow made it more damning."



I wish the article had mentioned exactly what these '94 recommendations, really pre-conditions to true reconciliation' were, if the Government is only willing to agree to one I cannot imagine they are as reasonable and rightous as the writer apparantly thinks they are.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

6000+ dead

Standard abuse theme by church run school.

It's not over yet as there are people who went through those schools and the families of those are also impacted.

Are any of those statements non factual or even sensationalist?

As I said, I knew about this, none of this is news to me - and in fact Greyblades is correct, the article is very low on substance and entirely on the side of the First Nations (they are aboriginal and it's incorrect to refer to them as such,).

The presentation makes it sound like this is all some big shock, but I knew all about it - it was common knowledge enough that it affected British political policy thirty years ago, and that has always been a matter of public record because the reservations were expressed by MP's in the House.

The abuse was systematic (also a matter of record) it was designed to break the children so they could be re-educated.

As to the Church part - epic meh when the BBC protected its own paedophile ring for decades.

[Fragony]

I also already knew all this and I am from Europe, when come the financial claims?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

[Fragony]

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

But there was never a mass-genocide there, this article is so sensationalist. Cleverly it's called a cultural genocide, someone is trying to make money. How many foundations are into this, never underestimate cynism.

[Greyblades]

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.

Eh, only the bits that buy into the sins of the father rhetoric.

[Papewaio]

As I said, I knew about this, none of this is news to me - and in fact Greyblades is correct, the article is very low on substance and entirely on the side of the First Nations (they are aboriginal and it's incorrect to refer to them as such,).

The presentation makes it sound like this is all some big shock, but I knew all about it - it was common knowledge enough that it affected British political policy thirty years ago, and that has always been a matter of public record because the reservations were expressed by MP's in the House.

The abuse was systematic (also a matter of record) it was designed to break the children so they could be re-educated.

As to the Church part - epic meh when the BBC protected its own paedophile ring for decades.

They are referred to as aboriginal because it is a broader and includes First Nation and other groups such as Inuit.

Also I do not think that the BBC protecting paedophiles should either filter our news or give other organizations a free pass. Might as well say that because Apartheid existed in South Africa other countries can do it as well.

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

[rvg]

The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.

[Papewaio]

The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.

Don't know about you but I'd prefer firewater to having a salty aftertaste...

[rory_20_uk]

I wish white people would stop inflicting such suffering on all these peaceful individuals who until we got there lived in harmony with each other.

I fell guilty that I don't feel guilty about these events that occurred on a different continent decades ago.

~:smoking:

[lars573]

Maybe these things are just not known in the former Colonies?

That makes a sort of sense, if your entire country and way of life works because you did a mass genocide you wouldn't talk about it unless you want your country to have a collective psychotic break.
I'm Canadian (33 for another month), and I first heard about all this when I was a teen. When the first nations began seeking some form of redress for what happened in residential schools.


The best part is how everything is blamed on that, from alcohol abuse, to high unemployment, to lack of education. As if those dirty Catholics poured firewater down each kid's throat.
Actually you can draw a line from residential schools and high unemployment* to the substance abuse and other social problems that are endemic on first nation reserves.




*The unemployment thing can be caused as much by geography as anything, if you look at a map of where a lot of reserves are.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well, this is part of "getting over it and moving on"
The fact is Canadians blithely ignore the position of Native cultures in our history, and in future development.
Fortunately, the history and its effect on the present is becoming much more clear.
The Commission (http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/index.php?p=9) is helping us come to grips with the present social realities.
The Supreme Court has upheld treaty undertakings as legally binding (no surprise) and has upheld Native claims to land the Crown wished to assert authority over.
Dealing with the past is crucial to Canada's future.

[Greyblades]

No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

[rvg]

Actually you can draw a line from residential schools and high unemployment* to the substance abuse and other social problems that are endemic on first nation reserves.

*The unemployment thing can be caused as much by geography as anything, if you look at a map of where a lot of reserves are.

The world only needs so many hunters, trappers, whalers and reindeer herders. The rest will either have to adopt the ways of the palefaces or drink themselves into oblivion. Adapt or perish.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The world only needs so many hunters, trappers, whalers and reindeer herders. The rest will either have to adopt the ways of the palefaces or drink themselves into oblivion. Adapt or perish.

So much of what you say can be said in a less crude way.

[Greyblades]

I'd take that as a good sign when all the only criticism is so superficial.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'd take that as a good sign when all the only criticism is so superficial.

Your country voted Tory because Ed Miliband ate a sandwich.

[Greyblades]

Your country voted Tory because Ed Miliband ate a sandwich.
9-
*gasp*
11
*cheering*


My country voted tory for many reasons but mostly because Ed Milliband was a spineless twat who tried to buy votes with a pro Islamic blasphemy law.

[a completely inoffensive name]

9-
*gasp*
11
*cheering*


My country voted tory for many reasons but mostly because Ed Milliband was a spineless twat who tried to buy votes with a pro Islamic blasphemy law.
It was the sandwich.

[Greyblades]

Eh, religion pandering muppet or eating a sandwich, either way he was swallowing someone's bull.

Or In this case pig, but bull was funnier.

[Strike For The South]

Secret? Is that some kind of joke?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

They are referred to as aboriginal because it is a broader and includes First Nation and other groups such as Inuit.

They're referred to as Aboriginal because it's a very narrow term that should only be applied to the first immigrants to a new land - the original human inhabitants.

The First Nations perpetrated cultural genocide of the American Aboriginals.


Also I do not think that the BBC protecting paedophiles should either filter our news or give other organizations a free pass. Might as well say that because Apartheid existed in South Africa other countries can do it as well.

No, more like because everybody in the Colonies abused the natives nobody should be made to suffer for it now. Germans are not expected to feel guilty for the Holocaust now (at least not by most people) and Canadians should not be forced to feel bad about the policy of forced integration.


The presentation is the difference between hearsay and official recognition. There is miles between gossip, innuendo and a factual recounting of events. Proper data and record keeping is not a bad thing.

Except these records were never hidden or sealed, and this was widely known about - if it was discussed in the British Parliament as a reason to deny Canada full self-government then it's not "hearsay" or "innuendo".

[Greyblades]

It is the height of unfairness to blame, shame or even punish someone for the actions of those over which he has no control, whether they share a race sex or nation.

Alas it's also a ubiquitous human impulse that few if any are innocent of acting upon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, the last First Nation representative we had here was extremely racist and saw all white people as a big group of "Euros" as though we were all the same.

[Noncommunist]

No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

You rest of you remember Megas Methusaleh, yes?

He was full of hatred for "Euro's" and he blamed the problems of his people on the white man more or less exclusively. He was a relatively enlightened and well educated example of his people, though still young.

The First Nations' collective poverty is self-inflicted. By remaining on the reservations and not fully integrating into Canadian society they limit their economic options and those of their children. What they SHOULD do is demand the reservations be legally integrated into Canada proper, then when they are audited in the next Census the Canadian government would be forced to allocate resources on the basis of need, and their extreme poverty would guarantee the lion's share of tax and welfare.

In fact, this was the point of the residential schools - as horrible as they were they were intended to integrate the First Nations people into Canadian society. The difference between then and now if that then "Canadian" society was seen as homogeneous and now it is seen as multi-cultural.

Of course, it won't happen because the elders of the First Nations are weak and over proud - they would rather condemn their people to continued suffering than acknowledge the world has changed.

[Husar]

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

Why the assumption that you'd have to tax the poorest to pay for it?
There is of course the assumption that recipients would have to prove why they should get the money.
But on the other hand you'd make everyone pay for it instead of proving whose family got rich based on the atrocity and making these families which gained their money and power doing this pay the taxes for the compensation.
I mean if you're going to research who should receive money, you might as well research who should pay money, or at least who should pay how much if you assume that everyone profited at least a little.

[Greyblades]

We could also present the bill for sending the royal navy to forcibly end the slave trade and the wealth we gave up freeing our own slaves without a fight, plus all that infrastructure and education the locals now benefit from.
If we're going to start demanding the unagreed debts of the dead be paid by the living we might as well be fair and not only favour the non whites.
Or we could just find what perpritrators still live and let the courts decide what's to be done with them, leave the majority who had nothing to do with it alone.


So the more successful the genocide, the more it's victims should get over it?

Way to willfuly misinterpret there, skippy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[HopAlongBunny]

Part of the problem with "just get over it" is it bites both ways.
In many cases, covering a huge amount of land, no title or claim was ever ceded to the Crown.period.
So in fact a large amount of the population of Canada exists on land that legally, they have no title to.
Granted, the majority live inside of treaty territory, but with few exceptions those are not lands that are presently part of the land claim dialogue.
It has more to do with un/underdeveloped resources outside the treaty areas.

[Tuuvi]

I wish the article had mentioned exactly what these '94 recommendations, really pre-conditions to true reconciliation' were, if the Government is only willing to agree to one I cannot imagine they are as reasonable and rightous as the writer apparantly thinks they are.

Here they are. (http://www.trc.ca/websites/trcinstitution/File/2015/Findings/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf)


No, not really.

Iirc It was long ago enough that a most of the main perpritrators are dead or close to and the sufferers are insignificant numerically; The natives being less than 5% of the Canadian population. The need to deal with this wont ever become significant enough to force Canada to do anything, it could easily go it's entire remaining existence without being forced to shed a tear.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which the article talked about is part of a legal settlement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Residential_Schools_Settlement_Agreement) reached in 2006. Canada has already been forced to do something.

Absolutely not - but if it's been half a century then the punishment you mete out in retribution falls on innocent shoulders. A good example of this is reparations for slavery, something the UK has always refused. The UK government COULD give Africans and Afro-Carribeans in the US and the Carribean individual cash payments as compensation, in a legal sense, but that money would come from UK tax payers. You're be stripping the UK budget and directly punishing the most vulnerable in the UK for an atrocity that was perpetrated before they were born.

You know this really isn't a very good comparison because some of the survivors of the Residential Schools are still alive.


The First Nations' collective poverty is self-inflicted. By remaining on the reservations and not fully integrating into Canadian society they limit their economic options and those of their children. What they SHOULD do is demand the reservations be legally integrated into Canada proper, then when they are audited in the next Census the Canadian government would be forced to allocate resources on the basis of need, and their extreme poverty would guarantee the lion's share of tax and welfare.

In fact, this was the point of the residential schools - as horrible as they were they were intended to integrate the First Nations people into Canadian society. The difference between then and now if that then "Canadian" society was seen as homogeneous and now it is seen as multi-cultural.

Of course, it won't happen because the elders of the First Nations are weak and over proud - they would rather condemn their people to continued suffering than acknowledge the world has changed.

Historically First Nations people have been treated as wards of the state and they were not allowed to manage their own affairs. They've also been subject to racism and discrimination which persists to this day and it's not as if they've been given equal access to economic opportunity. Never mind the fact that if they hadn't been displaced and forced to live in reserves they wouldn't be dealing with these problems in the first place.

[a completely inoffensive name]

You rest of you remember Megas Methusaleh, yes?

He was full of hatred for "Euro's" and he blamed the problems of his people on the white man more or less exclusively. He was a relatively enlightened and well educated example of his people, though still young.

He wasn't wrong though.

[Greyblades]

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission which the article talked about is part of a legal settlement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Residential_Schools_Settlement_Agreement) reached in 2006. Canada has already been forced to do something.


"Forced"?

Chose.

[lars573]

Part of the problem with "just get over it" is it bites both ways.
In many cases, covering a huge amount of land, no title or claim was ever ceded to the Crown.period.
So in fact a large amount of the population of Canada exists on land that legally, they have no title to.
Granted, the majority live inside of treaty territory, but with few exceptions those are not lands that are presently part of the land claim dialogue.
Not true. In BC there are areas where treaties were never established (because the pre-confederation colonial government was delinquent in their duty). But that's the north coast. Vancouver (island and city) are covered by treaties. You must have seen a map of the numbered treaties? You know the ones negotiated by the early Dominion government. They cover most of Rupert's land and the north west territories. Even if later on they were breached by the Dominion Government, they still exist. And technically the residential schools were the government fulfilling treaty obligations.

[HopAlongBunny]

Treaties cover almost 50% of Canada's land mass. The somewhat larger than 50% is a huge amount of land.
The area where Crown/Native agreements exist is now much larger than the linked map, with apparently satisfactory agreements reached with the Inuit and Dene in the North.

http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/1380223988016/1380224163492

For the future, its a matter of living up to the agreements.

[PanzerJaeger]

"Judge Sinclair blamed the residential school system for the dysfunction, chaos and poverty in aboriginal communities today. They face high crime, addiction and unemployment rates and poorer-than-average prospects in health and education."

And there it is. Americans are very familiar with this hustle (http://www.theatlantic.com/features/archive/2014/05/the-case-for-reparations/361631/). It will be interesting to see how the Canadians react.

[lars573]

2 billion was set aside a decade ago, and 1.62 billion paid out to 98% of those who qualified by 2012 (details (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Residential_Schools_Settlement_Agreement)). This is something else entirely.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He wasn't wrong though.

Yes, he absolutely was - he was completely wrong, about everything.

I was not out to get him, and neither were the VAST majority of Canadians.

Anybody who lumps me in with Spaniards, Italians and Greeks, or them with me, doesn't understand what Europe is - but then neither do most people in the US, of any colour.

[Husar]

Anybody who lumps me in with Spaniards, Italians and Greeks, or them with me, doesn't understand what Europe is - but then neither do most people in the US, of any colour.

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

I take it you don't understand Europe either.

[Greyblades]

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/748/803/ba8.gif

[Pannonian]

Yeah, Europe is a big continent with a long, rich, colourful , diverse and wonderful history. And people should not forget that Great Britain is not part of that continent anyway since it is an island that is very special.

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

Point - Germany only became part of "Western Europe" when it was divided between the Soviets and the Allies, it should have been reassigned to "Central Europe" on reunification of the two halves.

[Husar]

Given that what's traditionally thought of as Europe is founded on the Roman empire, it's a bit hypocritical of a German to exclude Britain from the definition of the continent. England, France, Benelux, Austria, and the Balkans, are all part of classical Europe. Germany, Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia are outside classical Europe.

It were the people from proper Europe who liberated the rest from roman oppression and paved the way for a network of wonderful, peaceful yet glorious nation states, the ultimate step in human development.


Point - Germany only became part of "Western Europe" when it was divided between the Soviets and the Allies, it should have been reassigned to "Central Europe" on reunification of the two halves.

Central Europe is still Europe whereas that island is really quite special geographically and the people are very, very special unlike all the others.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It were the people from proper Europe who liberated the rest from roman oppression and paved the way for a network of wonderful, peaceful yet glorious nation states, the ultimate step in human development.

There's really no way to paint the Fall of Rome as a positive step in Human development. You realise that the germanic Barbarians were the ones who overstressed the Pricipate's economy and caused it to reform into the Dominate, paving the way for centuries of feudal drudgery, right?

While it's not fair to modern Germans there is a reason why your people were painted as the monstrous "Hun"


Central Europe is still Europe whereas that island is really quite special geographically and the people are very, very special unlike all the others.

You're just jealous because some of my ancestors had Roman Citizenship and yours didn't.

[Husar]

There's really no way to paint the Fall of Rome as a positive step in Human development. You realise that the germanic Barbarians were the ones who overstressed the Pricipate's economy and caused it to reform into the Dominate, paving the way for centuries of feudal drudgery, right?

While it's not fair to modern Germans there is a reason why your people were painted as the monstrous "Hun"

"Barbarians" is a roman term indicative of it's own hubris that, together with an unhealthy potion of corruption and greed, ultimately led to its fall at the hands of said "barbarians". The feudal system wasn't that much worse than what the romans did if you consider all factors. Wasn't it largely the idea of absolute power given by religion that gave feudal lords an excuse to do what they want rather than the feudal idea of an exchange between security provided by the lord for work provided by his subjects? The romans could also do what they wanted with everyone who happened to be a slave and were quite bloodthirsty "barbarians" just for fun and giggles. The aqueducts and so on were nice but didn't make their behavior any more civilized no matter how much they liked to pretend it. The caesars were also not that much better than a feudal king/emperor and that after all the bad experiences they had made with kings already.


You're just jealous because some of my ancestors had Roman Citizenship and yours didn't.

I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbors and subduing them to its rule.

[Pannonian]

I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbors and subduing them to its rule.

You have the right to be proud of your history of fighting against the USSPQR. But shouldn't you look for another term to describe yourself, other than European? Since, after all, you fought hard and well to keep yourself out of that world, much harder than we did in England. Unlike you, we failed to resist, and so got folded into Europe like the French.

[Husar]

You have the right to be proud of your history of fighting against the USSPQR. But shouldn't you look for another term to describe yourself, other than European? Since, after all, you fought hard and well to keep yourself out of that world, much harder than we did in England. Unlike you, we failed to resist, and so got folded into Europe like the French.

No, why? I see European largely as a geographic term and the roman empire was part of Europe but not the be all end all of what makes Europe. There's no need to make up new terms if there already is one that everyone understands. To call only the roman areas Europe seems a bit weird nowadays, even if the Romans did that.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"Barbarians" is a roman term indicative of it's own hubris that, together with an unhealthy potion of corruption and greed, ultimately led to its fall at the hands of said "barbarians".

Hundreds of years of constant attacks and barbarian incursions progressively eroded Rome Civil society, resulting in militarisation and the loss of collective Civil Right.


The feudal system wasn't that much worse than what the romans did if you consider all factors. Wasn't it largely the idea of absolute power given by religion that gave feudal lords an excuse to do what they want rather than the feudal idea of an exchange between security provided by the lord for work provided by his subjects? The romans could also do what they wanted with everyone who happened to be a slave and were quite bloodthirsty "barbarians" just for fun and giggles.

Religion largely tried to restrain Feudal Lords, their caprice came from the lack of Civil Law (as provided by SPQR) and the social upheavals of the Renaissance is largely a rediscovery of Roman Law and its application to contemporary society.


The aqueducts and so on were nice but didn't make their behavior any more civilized no matter how much they liked to pretend it. The caesars were also not that much better than a feudal king/emperor and that after all the bad experiences they had made with kings already.

At least in Rome you couldn't be executed for being a homosexual - that was largely a capital offence in barbarian cultures.


I don't know how far you traced your family tree back but even if you could prove that, I'd rather take pride in my ancestors fighting and beating the USSPQR than them having been part of such a corrupt empire that expanded by killing off the neighbours and subduing them to its rule.

Far enough to know some of my ancestors were Welsh cattle drovers.

[Gilrandir]

To call only the roman areas Europe seems a bit weird nowadays, even if the Romans did that.
If we do, then Turkey, Syria, Israel, the Lebannon, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Marocco are Europe as well.

[Husar]

If we do, then Turkey, Syria, Israel, the Lebannon, Jordan, Egypt, Lybia, Algeria, Tunisia, Marocco are Europe as well.

I meant only the areas of Europe that were roman, not all roman territory.
Although now that I looked it up for 10 secs, it would indeed get a bit odd if we were to use roman names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(Roman_province)

[Pannonian]

I meant only the areas of Europe that were roman, not all roman territory.
Although now that I looked it up for 10 secs, it would indeed get a bit odd if we were to use roman names: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(Roman_province)

Whether or not we use the classical geography of Europe to define inclusion, surely we can use it to define exclusion, ie. that Germans are not Europeans. After all, that's your game at the start of this discussion, wasn't it?

[Husar]

Whether or not we use the classical geography of Europe to define inclusion, surely we can use it to define exclusion, ie. that Germans are not Europeans. After all, that's your game at the start of this discussion, wasn't it?

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.

[Gilrandir]

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.
In Ukrainian there are two different notions: part of the world (chastyna svitu) and continent/mainland (materyk). Sometimes they coincide (Australia, Antarctica, Africa), sometimes they don't - America as a part of the world contains two continents (North America and South America), Euroasia as a continent contains two parts of the world (Europe and Asia).
So, Great Britain, Ireland, Sicily, Corsica and other islands are not parts of the continent (of Europe), but they belong to Europe as a part of the world.
Suits everyone?

[HopAlongBunny]

Alberta (where I live) has made a public apology.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/alberta/alberta-premier-apologizes-for-residential-schools-joins-call-for-inquiry/article25065978/

This will likely not result in any concrete action/policy; the present sentiment appears to be calls for more studies and commissions.
I appreciate The Alberta governments apology; I hope this administration has the courage and imagination to propose concrete measures toward reconciliation.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That Britain is not part of mainland Europe is a geographical fact, whether the Romans were able to conquer some people or not is hardly a proper way to define a geographical area or the common culture of people 1500 years or more after the fact.
And it was PVC who said he has nothing in common with the Greeks, the Spaniards and the Italians, all of whom were ironically all part of the roman empire that you both now say defines some kind of common europeanality.

The point is that Canada needs to improve and you British can stop pretending that you do not belong into a group with other Europeans.

Actually, it's not a geographical fact unless you also accept that parts of Denmak and the Netherlands are also not part of Europe. the British Isles are part of the European landmass and occupy the same tectonic plate, it's just that the last ice age wiped out the land bridge.


Nothing in common with Greeks and Italians?

No - just that I can't be lumped in with them. Also, you clearly missed out all the countries I didn't mention - France, the Netherlands (English have a lot in common with the Dutch), Belgium, Scandinavia...

GERMANY.

So you allowed your prejudice to dictate how you read my post - because you think I'm Greyblades even though I'm regularly seen to slap Greyblades about.

As to SPQR membership not being a way to define a common culture...

I don't even know what to say, except, dafuq?

SPQR IS the definition of European culture, all our institutions are modelled on Roman ones, this is even true in the UK where Roman authority and society largely collapsed after the legions left. Even so, we here value concepts like Republicanism and due process of law, (Roman) letters and our universities were developed from the original Roman concept of a "liberal" eduction.

Even our version of Christianity was Roman.

Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

[Greyblades]

I protest! The slapping is a more occasional event, there's nothing regular about it.

[Husar]

Nothing in common with Greeks and Italians?

No - just that I can't be lumped in with them. Also, you clearly missed out all the countries I didn't mention - France, the Netherlands (English have a lot in common with the Dutch), Belgium, Scandinavia...

GERMANY.

So you allowed your prejudice to dictate how you read my post - because you think I'm Greyblades even though I'm regularly seen to slap Greyblades about.

There are only few British people such as Beskar about whom I do not have the prejudice that they believe in British exceptionalism.
And I will keep and nurture that prejudice until you can be lumped in with the greeks.


As to SPQR membership not being a way to define a common culture...

I don't even know what to say, except, dafuq?

I never said that, so yeah, dafuq?


SPQR IS the definition of European culture, all our institutions are modelled on Roman ones, this is even true in the UK where Roman authority and society largely collapsed after the legions left. Even so, we here value concepts like Republicanism and due process of law, (Roman) letters and our universities were developed from the original Roman concept of a "liberal" eduction.

Even our version of Christianity was Roman.

It certainly had a great influence but so did germanic and other (e.g. celtic) tribal cultures which were simply mixed with the SPQR culture in most places. And yes, we kept quite a few ideas of the romans around for too long even.


Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

Hardly. our modern republicanism is often more like a hidden oligarchy, the romans had a monarch instead of a proper republic most of the time, their science and teaching stuff was mostly stolen from the greeks anyway (the ones you don't want to be lumped in with) and is super outdated by now but was obviously flawed enough to stop itself from modernizing. Science and inventions didn't really stop after the collapse of the roman empire either and the Byzantines as the heirs of rome didn't make it to the moon, they couldn't even manage to defend their heavily fortified capital just like Rome didn't even manage to withstand some rabble. The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.
As a great inventor once said:

[...] Death is very likely the single best invention of Life. It is Life's change agent. It clears out the old to make way for the new.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There are only few British people such as Beskar about whom I do not have the prejudice that they believe in British exceptionalism.
And I will keep and nurture that prejudice until you can be lumped in with the greeks.

Ah, but Beskar doesn't believe in identity - he doesn't believe in being British and therefore you can't use him as an example of anything the British believe.

Your underlying belief in German exceptionalism might be interesting to discuss, though, or Kad's belief in Swedish exceptionalism, or Brenus' belief in French exceptionalism.


I never said that, so yeah, dafuq?

Oh yes you did - you said that Rome was not a good yardstick for Europe but "Europe" today is the area where Roman Christianity, East and West, survived. We consider North Africa to be separate from our "European" identity because it went Islamic and became "un Roman".


It certainly had a great influence but so did germanic and other (e.g. celtic) tribal cultures which were simply mixed with the SPQR culture in most places. And yes, we kept quite a few ideas of the romans around for too long even.

I challenge you to find germanic influences in modern Italy or Celtic influences in modern Greece - you won't. What you will find are Roman influences in modern Belgium and France, and also in Wales and Brittany.

Rome is the common thread - that's why it's the "Treaty of Rome" and not the "Treaty of Paris".

What, you thought it was an accident that the modern EU was signed into being, embryonically, in the Eternal City?


Hardly. our modern republicanism is often more like a hidden oligarchy, the romans had a monarch instead of a proper republic most of the time, their science and teaching stuff was mostly stolen from the greeks anyway (the ones you don't want to be lumped in with) and is super outdated by now but was obviously flawed enough to stop itself from modernizing. Science and inventions didn't really stop after the collapse of the roman empire either and the Byzantines as the heirs of rome didn't make it to the moon, they couldn't even manage to defend their heavily fortified capital just like Rome didn't even manage to withstand some rabble. The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.

Roman Republicanism was a form of hidden oligarchy in just the same way, Hence the Res Publica was SPQR and nor PR. Britain has also had a monarch for most of its history, yet has also historically tended towards what was an oligarchic form of Republicanism - punctuated by period of autocracy.

Britain is, of course, the other great influence on modern democratic thought aside from Rome.

As to applying the theory of evolution governments and nations, isn't that a cornerstone of Nazi ideology? I'm pairly sure it is, the argument that the best government is the one best able to overcome its enemies. Clearly, Germany needs to change its education system.

[Gilrandir]

if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_High_Crusade

[Papewaio]

I protest! The slapping is a more occasional event, there's nothing regular about it.

Oh it's more then just occasional... It's latex, PVC and fifty shades of Greyblades

[Sir Moody]

Now, lets be clear. It is the fault of the Germans barbarians that the WRE fell, if it weren't for your ancestors we would all have jet packs by now and Rome's Legions would be off conquering other planets!

As a Total war gamer you should be ashamed of yourself!

While the Germanic tribes hammered the last nail into WRE's coffin, Rome had been in decline for over a century and had almost torn itself apart several times - they were doomed mostly due to their own politics and if the Germanic Tribes had not raided Rome someone else would have.

I would also argue while the SPQR had a big effect on our culture, Christianity had a much bigger effect and it is a shared religion that ties us culturally together with the Germans and the rest of "Europe".


The theory of evolution tells us that the empire simply wasn't fit enough for this world and had to go.

Eh, while I agree with the gist of your sentiment, the Theory of evolution is a biological process and has no place describing political situations - Romes fall had nothing to do with evolution - instead it was a series of political mistakes.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As a Total war gamer you should be ashamed of yourself!

While the Germanic tribes hammered the last nail into WRE's coffin, Rome had been in decline for over a century and had almost torn itself apart several times - they were doomed mostly due to their own politics and if the Germanic Tribes had not raided Rome someone else would have.

I suppose it depends on your perspective, you can look at Rome as perpetually falling, or you can see it as virtually indestructible - what with the formation of the Empire, the year of the Five Emperors, the Crisis of the Third Century, the fall of the ERE, the Sassanids Wars, the Rise of Islam, the Turks, the Fourth Crusade...

This society survived for two thousand years, even though the centre eventually migrated from Rome to Constantinople that's still extraordinary. Then, on top of that, when the political structure collapsed then the West the society didn't. Despite waves of invasions and immigration the only province of the WRE where people do not speak Vulgar Latin today are Britannia where society actually DID collapse and Illyria.


I would also argue while the SPQR had a big effect on our culture, Christianity had a much bigger effect and it is a shared religion that ties us culturally together with the Germans and the rest of "Europe".

Well, the form of Christianity that survived was the form officially sponsored by the Emperor, and that Christianity was a vehicle for Roman ideas and even Roman technology, so I'm not sure they can be separated.

[Gilrandir]

Despite waves of invasions and immigration the only province of the WRE where people do not speak Vulgar Latin today are Britannia where society actually DID collapse and Illyria.


15677
What about Pannonia, Transalpine Gaul and African coast provinces?

[Kadagar_AV]

Your underlying belief in German exceptionalism might be interesting to discuss, though, or Kad's belief in Swedish exceptionalism, or Brenus' belief in French exceptionalism.


DUDE!!

I generally think well of you, but that was just sad..

Whenever have I been a Swedish exceptionalist?

I mean, I have lived most of my adult life in Austria, I have dual citizenship... I think Austria is on the right track and I think Sweden is on the wrong track.

I have never, like ever, said a word about Swedes being superior.

BETTER at some issues, sure. But generally saying I believe in Swedish exceptionalism? Puh-Leeze... :dizzy2:

What's wrong with ya mate? Bad day?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

15677
What about Pannonia, Transalpine Gaul and African coast provinces?

I forgot to qualify with "not conquered by Muslims" which is why they speak Arabic rather than Vandal Latin in Africa now, and I said Illyria, by which I meant the greater region including Pannonia.

Sorry.

[Gilrandir]

I forgot to qualify with "not conquered by Muslims" which is why they speak Arabic rather than Vandal Latin in Africa now, and I said Illyria, by which I meant the greater region including Pannonia.

Sorry.
And Transalpine Gaul a part of which is now more or less Switzerland?

[HopAlongBunny]

A contentious proposal from one First Nation leader:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/29/new-alberta-afn-regional-chief-says-treaties-guaranteed-resource-revenue-sharing/

He might even be right...but really, is any provincial gov't going to sign over a portion of resource revenue as the Native Cut? Might be a place to start a dialogue in any case.

Some movement by the province:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/06/29/new-alberta-afn-regional-chief-says-treaties-guaranteed-resource-revenue-sharing/

Not resource revenue sharing, but an aid to reserve based business out of general revenue.
No admission of any requirement, treaty or otherwise, to extend such funding; safer from a political perspective.

[rvg]

And Transalpine Gaul a part of which is now more or less Switzerland?

Yeah, but it's French and Italian speaking.

[Gilrandir]

Yeah, but it's French and Italian speaking.
There is also Rhaetian, but most of it is German speaking.

[HopAlongBunny]

It's official, even if barely reported within Canada; the gov't apparently did engage in "cultural genocide" according to the Supreme Court:

http://aptn.ca/news/2015/05/29/canadas-top-judge-says-country-committed-cultural-genocide-indigenous-peoples/

[lars573]

Well that's a big stack of no shit sherlock. What do you think assimilation actually means?

[Greyblades]

Call me when they admit to actual genocide.

[lars573]

They would've had to commit some first. We followed British not Yank norms with how First Nations were treated in the 19th century.

[HopAlongBunny]

Well it is an attempt to extirpate the language(s), beliefs(s) and cultural practices of an entire racially defined group of people.
People were re-located on a massive scale to achieve these goals; and large numbers of people died as a result.
Even people who submitted were regularly starved and denied services.
Genocide is a tricky thing to define; especially when the people assessing the classification, are the very people accused of carrying out the deed.

At the very least we are looking at treaty violations; the courts have already upheld the treaties (where they exist) as legal, binding and having force in law.
It may take another 4 centuries for the cases to wind through the courts, but the government will lose, again.

[Tuuvi]

Forced assimilation is wrong from a human rights perspective, especially when the victims are natives and not immigrants. Dictating how people should speak, think, dress, and identify themselves in order to create "national unity" is fascist, in the literal sense of the term. The difference between the Nazis and the Canadian government was that unlike the Nazis, the Canadians believed the First Nations' inferiority was not inherent and could be taught out of them. Trying to destroy a culture is not as brutal as killing people on an industrial scale but the goals are similar. It is an attempt to extinguish a group of people.

[Greyblades]

Well it is an attempt to extirpate the language(s), beliefs(s) and cultural practices of an entire racially defined group of people.
People were re-located on a massive scale to achieve these goals; and large numbers of people died as a result.
Even people who submitted were regularly starved and denied services.
I've highlighted the bits that I think are actually important.


The difference between the Nazis and the Canadian government was that unlike the Nazis, the Canadians believed the First Nations' inferiority was not inherent and could be taught out of them. Trying to destroy a culture is not as brutal as killing people on an industrial scale but the goals are similar. It is an attempt to extinguish a group of people.
Extinguish in that context means kill, which you just said the canadians werent trying to do.

[Tuuvi]

Extinguish in that context means kill, which you just said the canadians werent trying to do.

If an ethnic group is forced to assimilate and no-one identifies as belonging to that group anymore the ethnicity ceases to exist. It's extinguished.

[Brenus]

"We followed British not Yank norms" Not sure it is really a good model:
http://www.landscapeofgrandpre.ca/deportation-and-new-settlement-1755ndash1810.html
https://youtu.be/RnpW5IVyWtU

[lars573]

As opposed to the French model? No ones colonial undertakings were clean and happy fun time for all.

[Brenus]

"As opposed to the French model?" Nope. French Colonial Past is not one to be proud of. What about to find a new approach?

You see, I was not aware of this old ethnic cleansing, really. It happened that I discovered recently Cajun and Cadian music, so with it the deportation of the French populations by the English. And from U-tube to U-tube song, I discover as, even now, the deed feeling of the French origin population run deep. They still song how the English came to burn, pillage and rape. And you can see the crowd reacting about it.
So, perhaps it is time to heal at least these old wounds.

And one of the first step is to end this claim that "our" country was a model in dealing with conquered populations, native or not...

[HopAlongBunny]

It's interesting that Canada's "ugly bits" tend to arise when we attempt to shoehorn the country into an "British" "French" or "American" colonial model.
We seem to do best when we follow the Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land.

[Greyblades]

I was unaware that the natives had a model beyond an affinity for sub-zero shanty towns.

[Brenus]

"We seem to do best when we follow the Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land." The Natives were not slaughtering each others with great enthusiasm?

[Tuuvi]

I was unaware that the natives had a model beyond an affinity for sub-zero shanty towns.

Well jeez that was racist.


"We seem to do best when we follow the Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land." The Natives were not slaughtering each others with great enthusiasm?

I don't think they were any more enthusiastic than anyone else...

[Greyblades]

Well jeez that was racist.


In your overly broad defenition of racism yes. In reality, no it wasn't.

We still have no idea what hoppy means by native model.

[Tuuvi]

In your overly broad defenition of racism yes. In reality, no it wasn't.

We still have no idea what hoppy means by native model.

It wasn't KKK level racism but you said an entire group of people has "an affinity for sub-zero shanty towns." I admit I thought you were trying to be snarky, and maybe you weren't, but either way it's obvious you don't think very highly of Native American people.

[Greyblades]

It was snark.

For the record I don't think highly of how other people think highly of native Americans out of reasons that have a habit of being rooted in severe cases of white guilt.

I'm not prejudiced against American Indians, I am prejudiced against the people buoying them up as being one step removed of Tolkien's elves when in fact they are just as capable of good and evil/smart and dumb actions as everyone else. The kneejerk reaction to automatically assume infallibility on their part when in conflict with the "colonials" has ironically made me prone to assuming the opposite whenever someone brings such conflicts to my attention.

So yeah I'm racist, but against the claims of hippies, not the dirty redskins.

That was snark too btw.

[Tuuvi]

It was snark.

For the record I don't think highly of how other people think highly of native Americans out of reasons that have a habit of being rooted in severe cases of white guilt.

I'm not prejudiced against American Indians, I am prejudiced against the people buoying them up as being one step removed of Tolkien's elves when in fact they are just as capable of good and evil/smart and dumb actions as everyone else. The kneejerk reaction to automatically assume infallibility on their part when in conflict with the "colonials" has ironically made me prone to assuming the opposite whenever someone brings such conflicts to my attention.

So yeah I'm racist, but against the claims of hippies, not the dirty redskins.

That was snark too btw.

You are right that American Indians are no better or worse than anyone one else and shouldn't be put on a pedestal. Indians fought wars, participated in slavery, and committed atrocities, just like everyone else. But the fact of the matter is, the Europeans wanted to settle in the Americas, but most of the land was already occupied, so the Indians were forced out. White supremacy was the dominant attitude of the 19th and early-mid 20th centuries, and after colonization Indians were marginalized and denied economic opportunity and political representation along with Blacks, Asians and Latinos. Indians in the US also had the special privilege of being wards of the federal government and weren't trusted to manage their own affairs. On an individual level, some Indians are responsible for their own problems of course, but as a whole Indians were put in the situation they are in now by White settlers and the US and Canadian governments.

I don't like it when people try to deny this history or make disparaging remarks about minorities because that perpetuates the attitudes that led to the atrocities committed against Indians and their subsequent oppression. The Civil Rights Movement was only 40-50 years ago. We've made progress since then but we still haven't rooted racism out of our societies, and we never will if we keep blaming Indians for their poverty and saying stuff like "they have an affinity for sub-zero shanty towns."

I don't feel White guilt. I'm not responsible for things that happened before I was born and I don't believe I have some sort racial bond with other White people. I think the ones who feel white guilt are the ones who can't admit their ancestors committed genocide.

[Kadagar_AV]

We seem to do best when we follow the Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land.

I'm also interested what this model was?

We have SUCH a tendency today to view colonialism as the "evil white man" conquering the "proud peaceful native" that we seem to forget that the absolute vast majority of cultures we conquered were absolutely HORRIBLE.

Sure white culture wasn't perfect, but from what I have read it most of the times was a TRUCKLOAD better than the alternatives that the natives had.

[Gilrandir]

I'm not prejudiced against American Indians, I am prejudiced against the people buoying them up as being one step removed of Tolkien's elves when in fact they are just as capable of good and evil/smart and dumb actions as everyone else.

Little do you know of Tolkien's Elves when you consider them closer to prefect than Men. I refer you to Silmarillion. Many of the later Ages' problems stem from disodedience, haughtiness and stubbornness the Elves displayed back then.

[Husar]

I'm also interested what this model was?

We have SUCH a tendency today to view colonialism as the "evil white man" conquering the "proud peaceful native" that we seem to forget that the absolute vast majority of cultures we conquered were absolutely HORRIBLE.

Sure white culture wasn't perfect, but from what I have read it most of the times was a TRUCKLOAD better than the alternatives that the natives had.

I've always rolled my eyes at the noble savage idea, but what you say just makes you sound racist, it does not change anything.
The noble white man bringing culture to the half-apes is just a racist excuse for all the slavery, oppression and murder that were committed for corporate gains.

The truth is somewhere in the middle as it often is, but you only want to polarize since you only bring up the two extreme positions.
What would have become of their cultures without colonialism is only a big what-if since that never happened. I might as well claim that we'd all be better off if Hitler had conquered the planet.

And maybe you could actually make a substantiated claim and tell us what was horrible about their cultures and why ours were better. So far I only remember you making claims without any arguments about this.

[lars573]

"As opposed to the French model?" Nope. French Colonial Past is not one to be proud of. What about to find a new approach?

You see, I was not aware of this old ethnic cleansing, really. It happened that I discovered recently Cajun and Cadian music, so with it the deportation of the French populations by the English. And from U-tube to U-tube song, I discover as, even now, the deed feeling of the French origin population run deep. They still song how the English came to burn, pillage and rape. And you can see the crowd reacting about it.
So, perhaps it is time to heal at least these old wounds.

And one of the first step is to end this claim that "our" country was a model in dealing with conquered populations, native or not...
First off it's Acadienne, and it's not like they had no hand in their ultimate fate. That's not ethnocentrism, that's I read a history book or two. The Acadians weren't removed for being French living on now British ruled land. If that were the case they'd have been gone from mainland Nova Scotia after 1713 with the Treaty of Utrecht (it has a specific provision allowing them to stay). They were removed for being French people living on now British ruled land engaging in a guerrilla war against the British off and on for 40 years on behalf of the French crown. That bubbled over into major conflicts twice. The Acadian's weren't innocent bystanders, they just backed the losing side. I mean the first nations in the area (Mi'kmaq and Maliseet) saw which way the wind was blowing and came to terms with the British. It's also not like Acadians didn't just come back after the great upheaval.


It's interesting that Canada's "ugly bits" tend to arise when we attempt to shoehorn the country into an "British" "French" or "American" colonial model.
We seem to do best when we follow the Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land.
The Metis were related by blood and culture to the First nations though. Way easier to find common ground and establish an I'll be over here, you be over there, and we'll stay outta each others way status quo.

[Kadagar_AV]

I've always rolled my eyes at the noble savage idea, but what you say just makes you sound racist, it does not change anything.
The noble white man bringing culture to the half-apes is just a racist excuse for all the slavery, oppression and murder that were committed for corporate gains.

The truth is somewhere in the middle as it often is, but you only want to polarize since you only bring up the two extreme positions.
What would have become of their cultures without colonialism is only a big what-if since that never happened. I might as well claim that we'd all be better off if Hitler had conquered the planet.

And maybe you could actually make a substantiated claim and tell us what was horrible about their cultures and why ours were better. So far I only remember you making claims without any arguments about this.

You know, there was slavery, oppression and murder in Africa before the white guy came, no? It's not like the white guy invented it... The Arabs were the biggest buyers before, AND AFTER. The slave trade to arabic countries is still active, btw.

If you wonder about "examples" of horrible culture... You never once heard about cannibals, as an example? Heck, Africa even TODAY often have extremely horrible cultures with female mutilation, rapes, incest, honor cultures, tribal cultures... Yadda yadda...

If you want to direct your anger against how others have used blacks as slaves, look to the arabic countries, they are way more responsible. But that probably doesn't fit your bleeding heart leftist agenda.

I as a Swede can honestly say we had like nothing to do with the slave trade (we had one short lived station in Africa that handled little to no slaves).

But I should still have some "racial guilt"? are you for real?


Yeah, it is most often bad karma to be borne in Africa. The citizens they have there should REALLY start to sort it out.



About other native groups, it's rarely as bad as with Africans... I have heard some horror stories about Australian natives and their culture, but I know too little (and care too little) to say much about it.

[Husar]

You know, there was slavery, oppression and murder in Africa before the white guy came, no? It's not like the white guy invented it... The Arabs were the biggest buyers before, AND AFTER. The slave trade to arabic countries is still active, btw.

It is also still active in Europe. And yes, of course all that existed there before, it also existed in Europe.


If you wonder about "examples" of horrible culture... You never once heard about cannibals, as an example? Heck, Africa even TODAY often have extremely horrible cultures with female mutilation, rapes, incest, honor cultures, tribal cultures... Yadda yadda...

What's so bad about cannibals?
And that they do things to eachother that we perceive as evil justifies that we do things to them that everyone perceives as evil?
Also which of these things happened in Canada since this is not the topic on Africa anyway.


If you want to direct your anger against how others have used blacks as slaves, look to the arabic countries, they are way more responsible. But that probably doesn't fit your bleeding heart leftist agenda.

If I have a bleeding heart leftist agenda, then you must be the nazi.
I also never said we should take arabia as a role model, that sort of thing only seems to exist in your head.
Not to forget that the wrongs of arabia do not make our wrongs right.


I as a Swede can honestly say we had like nothing to do with the slave trade (we had one short lived station in Africa that handled little to no slaves).

But I should still have some "racial guilt"? are you for real?

How about you don't make things up that I never said and don't get worked up about these nonexistant things?


Yeah, it is most often bad karma to be borne in Africa. The citizens they have there should REALLY start to sort it out.

Still not a topic on Africa.


About other native groups, it's rarely as bad as with Africans... I have heard some horror stories about Australian natives and their culture, but I know too little (and care too little) to say much about it.

So you agree that Canada shouldn't have tried to forcefully kill off the culture of the natives?

[Kadagar_AV]

Husar, Africa has as much to do with it as your constant references to Germany in the 1930's -40's... Trauma/complex?

You asked for examples of why colonialism might not have been such a bad idea as the native culture was horrible, and I gave you some. And then you flame me for giving you examples of what you requested?

YOU were the one who brought up slavery, did the Canadians enslave their minorities? If not, how can you blame me for following your (lack of?) thought?

As quoted here:


The noble white man bringing culture to the half-apes is just a racist excuse for all the slavery, oppression and murder that were committed for corporate gains.

I think it's quite fair to meet such a line of thought with stating that the, as you call them, "half apes" (what a strange way to talk about human beings) were like REALLY good at slavery, oppression and murder all on their own. They had bad and sad cultures before the white man got there, they have had bad and sad cultures since the white man left.

In fact, for every 1 year of whites meddling they have had what? 300-400 years to sort their **** out? White meddling make up a FRACTION of the time human (lack of?) civilization in Africa has existed.

[HopAlongBunny]

The Native populations were not passive. They allied with the British and the French; serving with great gusto.
They were also not above displacing each other; when one tribe was decimated by disease another would happily move in.
But by way of example, we have a new Elections law following our American "betters" in wiping out voter fraud. Like in the USA voter fraud is not (has never been afaik) a problem. It does disenfranchise people though.
When we don the colonial mindset, we tend to adopt failed policies from our present model instead of doing something useful.

By way of references I recommend Clearing the Plains for historical reference, and The Inconvenient Indian for a contemporary account.

[Greyblades]

Still waiting for an explanation of this "Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land" that you think is best.

[Kadagar_AV]

Still waiting for an explanation of this "Native/Metis model of finding away to live together on the land" that you think is best.

He's probably just raised in an environment where that is the right thing to say, and then he hasn't thought much more on it since.

[Husar]

Husar, Africa has as much to do with it as your constant references to Germany in the 1930's -40's... Trauma/complex?

No, I just love talking about the good old times.


You asked for examples of why colonialism might not have been such a bad idea as the native culture was horrible, and I gave you some. And then you flame me for giving you examples of what you requested?

No. Read my post again.


YOU were the one who brought up slavery, did the Canadians enslave their minorities? If not, how can you blame me for following your (lack of?) thought?

Yes, your first post led me to believe this was the topic on Africa, I was trying to rectify that mistake, not so much trying to blame you.


I think it's quite fair to meet such a line of thought with stating that the, as you call them, "half apes" (what a strange way to talk about human beings) were like REALLY good at slavery, oppression and murder all on their own. They had bad and sad cultures before the white man got there, they have had bad and sad cultures since the white man left.

Yes, it's how our great grandparents talked about them, very strange indeed. You should feel very guilty because of that.
And now you're saying that the white man didn't do anything wrong in dealing with them? Or that our wrongs are okay because of their wrongs? Do you support the death penalty?

By the way, in Europe it was also everyone murdering everyone else before the end of WW2, that alone does not make a sad or bad culture. Europeans were just doing it on a higher technological level. And it didn't even completely stop after WW2.

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, it's how our great grandparents talked about them, very strange indeed. You should feel very guilty because of that.

I have no idea of what ****ed up grandparents you have, Mr. German guy... All I know is that that the grandfather on my fathers side were in the resistance force blowing up Hitlers trains, while the grandfather on my mothers side was busy organizing shelter for Finnish refugee children while protecting the swedish border...

What is it EXACTLY that I should feel guilty about here?



And now you're saying that the white man didn't do anything wrong in dealing with them?

Not at all. Actually, it would be a very dumb thing to do - to conclude that I mean that the white man has done nothing wrong. I might even have to stretch it as far as saying you have to be ideologically blind to even begin to draw such conclusions.



Or that our wrongs are okay because of their wrongs?

Actually, I am the one who put things in perspective here... You are the one on the bandwagon.



Do you support the death penalty?

As a matter of fact I do, in some extreme cases... Like that guy who during christmas dressed out as santa, and raped a 8 year old... And after 20+ years in jail went out and rape/murdered a 7 year old...

I don't want to see him back in society again, nor do I as a tax payer want to pay for his living expenses meanwhile.

But yeah, I would limit death penalty to extreme cases, not like it's done in, say, the US.


By the way, in Europe it was also everyone murdering everyone else before the end of WW2, that alone does not make a sad or bad culture. Europeans were just doing it on a higher technological level. And it didn't even completely stop after WW2.

Now you are just falling into some in your view political correct review of history and facts.


An example to combat that line of thought of yours:

YES we in Sweden have had group-rapes and assault-rapes before we let a load of Africans in...

But with that said, the number of group-rapes and assault-rapes have STILL skyrocketed since we started accepting a truckload of people from questionable cultures. And the perps are not named Björn, Lars or Sven.


Culture is a REAL thing... You can like it or dislike it, but you can never shy away from the fact.

Also, LOL.

[Brenus]

“They were removed for being French people living on now British ruled land engaging in a guerrilla war against the British off and on for 40 years on behalf of the French crown.”
So we agree that the “British way” was no better than the “Yankee” way, as I don’t see Custer saying something really different: Signed treaty, escape reserves, have to be deported/killed/put on lines.
This said, an ethnic cleansing is an ethnic cleansing, and I am quite surprise you justify it with the same kind of arguments used by the SS during WW2 for burning villages, hanging by-passers and killing hostages.

I was really surprised by the French Canadians feelings for events of what, 2-300 years old, but, seeing yours, I can see the problem.
About Cadian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_French

Apparently, yours readings were exclusively on the British point of view

[Husar]

What is it EXACTLY that I should feel guilty about here?

Where you were born, who your parents are and of course the colour of your skin. Also the problems that your fellow countrymen cause you.


Actually, I am the one who put things in perspective here... You are the one on the bandwagon.

What perspective would that be? You seemed to justify killing all the natives because you think their culture is "HORRIBLE".
If that was not it, then you don't put anything in perspective, you just confuse people by being unclear.


Now you are just falling into some in your view political correct review of history and facts.


An example to combat that line of thought of yours:

YES we in Sweden have had group-rapes and assault-rapes before we let a load of Africans in...

But with that said, the number of group-rapes and assault-rapes have STILL skyrocketed since we started accepting a truckload of people from questionable cultures. And the perps are not named Björn, Lars or Sven.


Culture is a REAL thing... You can like it or dislike it, but you can never shy away from the fact.

Also, LOL.

Now you're just falling back to your racist theories about inferior people...

To challenge that line of thought of yours:
Completely different upbringing, circumstances etc., bad immigration policies (creation of ghettos, natives leave instead of giving immigrants a chance early on, continuation just exacerbates the problem by making immigrants feel unwanted, alone and within a hostile culture, which is not even wrong and becomes self-perpetuating).
You know, I am with you if you say that immigration needs to be handled carefully and that smaller countries may overload themselves. Where I am not with you is that you always blame everything solely on the immigrants and their genetics or culture or whatever you call it nowadays not to get banned.

[lars573]

So we agree that the “British way” was no better than the “Yankee” way, as I don’t see Custer saying something really different: Signed treaty, escape reserves, have to be deported/killed/put on lines.
This said, an ethnic cleansing is an ethnic cleansing, and I am quite surprise you justify it with the same kind of arguments used by the SS during WW2 for burning villages, hanging by-passers and killing hostages.
:laugh4: :no: The yank way would be massacres and unsupported running off of the previous inhabitants (see the loyalist experiences). The British removed the Acadians to ships and dropped them off somewhere they had a chance to get by after ward. Oh and they never stopped any of them from coming back. And I don't see any government in anytime period that would be willing to nothing when you have a hostile population that flat refuses to do anything but fight you. Removing them was the more humanist thing in the 18th century (I will never impose modern morales and people that far back, for me even WW1 is almost too far). Other nations would more than likely have suppressed them with the sword. I mean did you even look up the current Acadian population living on the former colony's lands? It's 93196. So worst ethnic cleansing ever.


I was really surprised by the French Canadians feelings for events of what, 2-300 years old, but, seeing yours, I can see the problem.
Actually most French Canadian grievances are from late Victorian onward British imperial assimilationist attitudes. Which only ended in Canada in the 60's. You know cultural genocide. Quebecois really live in fear of that. Especially after the destruction of Cajun French after the US civil war. That's where they're go it alone nationalism comes from, and their desire to weaken the Anglo dominated federal government. Acadians being a much smaller ethnic group (36000 living in the Canadian parts their old colony) seek protection inside the system they live in. That's why New Brunswick is the only bi-lingual province in Canada. And Nova Scotia has Acadian schools


About Cadian: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cajun_French
That's not a term stop trying to make it up. AKA show me where you heard it. Cause I know it's trademarked by Gamesworkshop.


Apparently, yours readings were exclusively on the British point of view
No they were first the sorta evil British imperialist narrative public schools push. Then less biased writings. In school history classes you learn nothing of the Acadians guerrilla war against the British. It pushes innocent bystander Acadians get stepped on by British/French colonial wheeling and dealing.

[Brenus]

"AKA show me where you heard it" Difficult to show where we heard something.
Well, you might be surprise: It is a french word.
http://cyberacadie.com/index.php?/diaspora/Louisiane-Cadien-/Cajun.html

"Cause I know it's trademarked by Gamesworkshop" You obviously don't know French. In French, the name for French speaking population is Cadien. In the text I linked: "En 1999 (du 1 août au 15 août) les Cadiens de la Louisiane accueillirent les Acadiens de par le monde, lors du deuxième Congrès Mondial Acadien."
Now, I think that settle the problem. Or not?
Or if you prefer youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5oXhbuChVM

"Acadians guerrilla war against the British." Bad bad Acadians who try to resist against nice British who invaded their lands. Really, this people...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_the_Acadians
According the link, the guerrilla occurred DURING the deportation. Some might thing the guerrilla was the RESULT of the deportation. And during the war, guerrilla is part of the war.
So, nope, I think the British way of dealing with supposed hostile population is no better than the yanks' one.

"The British removed the Acadians to ships and dropped them off somewhere" Not according Wiki: "New England Ranger Lieutenant Hazen engaged in frontier warfare against the Acadians in what has become known as the "Ste Anne's Massacre". On 18 February 1759, Hazen and about fifteen men arrived at Sainte-Anne des Pays-Bas. The Rangers pillaged and burned the village of 147 buildings, two Mass-houses and various barns and stables. The Rangers burned a large store-house, containing a large quantity of hay, wheat, peas, oats and other foodstuffs, killing 212 horses, about five head of cattle and a large number of hogs. They also burned the church located just west of Old Government House, Fredericton.[63] The leader of the Acadian militia on the St. John river Joseph Godin-Bellefontaine refused to swear an oath despite the Rangers torturing and killing members of his family in front of him." It was against order, but no, the British were not nice and sweet.
But you can carry on to defend ethnic cleansing.

[Kadagar_AV]

Husar, I actually reported that post. I don't do it often but hey, that was just so... Well, bad.

What do you mean is bad about my parents?

I mean, skin colour, sure, we can have a debate on pros and cons of white versus dark skin... Sun reflection ability is a good start.

But see, when you start to trash talk my dead father and stuff, well, that is where I draw the line and just declare you an asshole (yeah, I'll take a warning point for that).

So really Husar, both of my tall fingers heading your way.

[Husar]

Husar, I actually reported that post. I don't do it often but hey, that was just so... Well, bad.

What do you mean is bad about my parents?

I mean, skin colour, sure, we can have a debate on pros and cons of white versus dark skin... Sun reflection ability is a good start.

But see, when you start to trash talk my dead father and stuff, well, that is where I draw the line and just declare you an asshole (yeah, I'll take a warning point for that).

I mentioned the things that people of other countries are often criticized or disliked for, but irony and sarcasm don't seem to be your thing. It was meant as a sarastic and general statement, why should I hate your parents if I don't even know them? Maybe it makes sense to you because you seem to have strong opinions about millions of people whom you never knew...

[Kadagar_AV]

I mentioned the things that people of other countries are often criticized or disliked for, but irony and sarcasm don't seem to be your thing. It was meant as a sarastic and general statement, why should I hate your parents if I don't even know them? Maybe it makes sense to you because you seem to have strong opinions about millions of people whom you never knew...

People of other countries are often criticized or disliked because of their parents for no reason?

Are you on drugs?

[Husar]

People of other countries are often criticized or disliked because of their parents for no reason?

Are you on drugs?

No, you just don't understand what I did there. :shrug:

[Kadagar_AV]

No, you just don't understand what I did there. :shrug:

No, YOU don't understand what you did there.

You have no, absolutely non, under no circumstances, any right to in any way try to put my parents in a bad way, even jokingly/sarcastically/whatever. Had we been face to face tonight I would have introduced your mouth to my fist.

[Beskar]

Kadagar, he was referring to the fact you made similar comments about people from African decent, saying their parents sleep with their siblings, all kinds of inaccurate accusations and what not, and by proxy, the children are responsible for their crimes. Thus, you condemn people as guilty because of their parents. Thus, he responded to your "What should I be guilty for?", he mentioned 'your parents' as a parody of your view, along with other factors like 'skin tone', 'culture', etc. He wasn't personally attacking you or making references to your deceased father.

Please keep the tone civil.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar, he was referring to the fact you made similar comments about people from African decent, saying their parents sleep with their siblings, all kinds of inaccurate accusations and what not, and by proxy, the children are responsible for their crimes. Thus, you condemn people as guilty because of their parents. Thus, he responded to your "What should I be guilty for?", he mentioned 'your parents' as a parody of your view, along with other factors like 'skin tone', 'culture', etc. He wasn't personally attacking you or making references to your 'dead dad'.

Please keep the tone civil.

Huh?

When did similar and same, be equal?


I think I might have complained about the hardships of teaching inbred children, sure. And yeah, in a way that is "blaming the parents".

I might also have stated that the Middle East and Africa are like sky rocketing when it comes to inbreeding stats...

But to have a German guy for no reason directly criticise my late concentration-camp-surviving father is a whole other thing.

So no, I reported that, and I stick by it, and I still have two fingers generally pointing in the German direction.

[Leet Eriksson]

I forgot to qualify with "not conquered by Muslims" which is why they speak Arabic rather than Vandal Latin in Africa now, and I said Illyria, by which I meant the greater region including Pannonia.

Sorry.

Tamazght exists, it predates "Vandal Latin", so no they wouldn't speak Latin but Neo-Carthaginian.

Screw ya'll Romans, Carthage lives again :clown: